Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Howard County is a perfect example: standardized curriculum without 'magnet' schools, relatively standardized resources devoted to each school. The variable are the kids and their families.
Wilde Lake High School and River Hill High School are separated by about 3 miles geographically. World of difference if you look at test scores, 4 year matriculation rates, # of APs, etc. etc. etc.
River Hill's catch area is the most well-off portion of HoCo. Wilde Lake is the least.
Exactly, it seems we are trying to deal with everything except what really matters, and that's what goes on in the homes.
Having pre-school does not eliminate the disadvantages that poorer students will face. Yes it will give them more opportunity than perhaps they would have normally had in the same circumstances, but at what cost? So their parents can still work? It doesn't changed the issues they deal with on a daily basis as poorer students. It gives them an outlet, not necessarily a solution to their conditions.
I have absolutely no idea what this means.
Quote:
Saying that preschool will save money on prisons and welfare, is a giant leap. There is nothing that suggest that even those kids were not in these program that this is where they would have been going so let's not make such an assumption because there is absolutely no basis to support it.
Are you saying studies can't find out if children who have had preschool are more or less likely to go on welfare, engage in criminal activities, etc? If that is your contention, I respectfully disagree and I would like to point out that any further discussion is completely and totally pointless, because if we aren't privy to the same facts, we will never agree.
Quote:
There is no investigation that needs to be done, the article itself showed clear, concrete evidence that students that spent more time with their parents gained more. If you look at statistics about not only parents spending time with their kids, but also kids growing up in a two parent home, they show how much more children succeed compared to just about any other situation. Enabling parents to have to work more and keeping them out of the homes is not necessarily full-proof for the kids and does not in anyway promote maintaining a strong family structure in anyway. Instead it's promoting this idea that other people do a job that parents are best fit to do, and that's raising their own kids.
So basically, 2-parent homes with caring parents who have their act together are the best advantage a child can have? Ok, serious question: Who DOESN'T KNOW THIS already? Seriously, is this a controversial bit of information or something that you guys keep dropping it? Of course having a stable home is better than every intervention we can think of. True story: all the "liberal" news outlets like the New York Times, the Atlantic, etc., have covered ad nauseum on this fact as well. It's not controversial AT ALL! Have we discussed some sort of policy that encourages two-parent, stable homes? If we are, I missed it. And if there is one you have to suggest, I am sure that I would support it. What this has to do with pre-school, I have no idea. Oh, and both parents need to work outside the home. There are innumerable reasons for this, both economically and culturally at this point. Preschool or the lack thereof has absolutely no effect on this. It wouldn't "enable" me to work if public preschool was available to my child. At that point, I've been working the child's entire life and I've figured out my childcare situation. Seriously.
Based on your answers, I don't think you are reading what I am saying. When I say that this is an outlet, I mean it gives them something that temporarily gets them something positive, but it may not impact the one thing that will greatly influence their success and that is their home life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimar
Are you saying studies can't find out if children who have had preschool are more or less likely to go on welfare, engage in criminal activities, etc? If that is your contention, I respectfully disagree and I would like to point out that any further discussion is completely and totally pointless, because if we aren't privy to the same facts, we will never agree.
You would have to assume those kids were going that route anyway. How do you prove that? There are kids who have everything given to them and still end up on welfare and engage in criminal activities. There is no way you can trivialize someone's life and suggest that going to pre-school is going to decide if someone is successful or not and say that it is the only variable that impacts their outcome. That is the point I am making. I'm not suggesting that it can't help, because in certain situation it can, but I am stating that it's not really addressing the thing that will have a greater influence on a child, which is who is raising them. Taking them further from their parents to me is not a good idea. Clearly we disagree on this part, which is fine. I am just making a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimar
So basically, 2-parent homes with caring parents who have their act together are the best advantage a child can have? Ok, serious question: Who DOESN'T KNOW THIS already? Seriously, is this a controversial bit of information or something that you guys keep dropping it? Of course having a stable home is better than every intervention we can think of. True story: all the "liberal" news outlets like the New York Times, the Atlantic, etc., have covered ad nauseum on this fact as well. It's not controversial AT ALL! Have we discussed some sort of policy that encourages two-parent, stable homes? If we are, I missed it. And if there is one you have to suggest, I am sure that I would support it. What this has to do with pre-school, I have no idea. Oh, and both parents need to work outside the home. There are innumerable reasons for this, both economically and culturally at this point. Preschool or the lack thereof has absolutely no effect on this. It wouldn't "enable" me to work if public preschool was available to my child. At that point, I've been working the child's entire life and I've figured out my childcare situation. Seriously.
Could you be anymore condescending? Please calm down. Anyway, what I am saying is it appears that they are trying to create pre-school as a solution to a child's success instead of doing things more to encourage two parent homes. How do you do that? Well for starters not trying to kill the concept of SAHM by encouraging everyone to send their kids to pre-school. It's too expensive in this country for child care. A lot of parents are going out working extra hours just to cover those expenses. Adding more cost (again middle class and working class families will inherit the cost on this) is not in anyway going to creating a stable home life. It's creating this false idea that basically the government/child care can raise your kids just as well as you. Well based on what you just said, you even agree that a child with their parents, spending more time with those parents, is the best solution, so why are we not doing more to work on that as a solution?
You would have to assume those kids were going that route anyway. How do you prove that? There are kids who have everything given to them and still end up on welfare and engage in criminal activities. There is no way you can trivialize someone's life and suggest that going to pre-school is going to decide if someone is successful or not and say that it is the only variable that impacts their outcome.
Basically, this is the end of our discussion. We just don't live in the same universe, I think. There are people who spend decades, entire careers, following groups of children to determine what factors make a difference in their outcomes. I think characterizing this type of study as an effort to "trivialize someone's life" just reveals your bias or lack of knowledge, perhaps. What more can we say? I know, let's sit around and complain about how poor people have low moral standards and leach off the government. That certainly never gets old on this forum!
My guess is that Hogan is going to focus primarily on Western, Eastern, and Southern Maryland-areas largely ignored by O'Malley while remaining moderate with Central Maryland. He can do the Republican 'thing' with the counties who favored him, and will vote Republican in 2018 regardless, but he's going to have to throw Montgomery County and Prince George's County a bone every now-and-then to keep everyone happy.
I disagree. I think the focus will continue on those constituents that are the bread and butter of Maryland's economy. Those still are still the counties within the DC/Baltimore corridor. Those counties wield too much economic power and we all know money speaks in politics.
In my opinion, he'll be throwing the bones to the western, eastern, and southern counties.
Basically, this is the end of our discussion. We just don't live in the same universe, I think. There are people who spend decades, entire careers, following groups of children to determine what factors make a difference in their outcomes. I think characterizing this type of study as an effort to "trivialize someone's life" just reveals your bias or lack of knowledge, perhaps. What more can we say? I know, let's sit around and complain about how poor people have low moral standards and leach off the government. That certainly never gets old on this forum!
Wow. I don't even believe that nor have I ever stated on this thread. You are just stereotyping me and getting emotional just because someone disagrees with you. This is why no one can have a conversation with you. You aren't mature enough to deal with topics like this without taking it personal, when someone disagrees with you. I respect your opinion on this topic and I just disagree. I have had the same conversation with friends of mine and although they have similar views as you, none of them resulted in being as insulting as you have.
I am not even completely disagree with what you stated. All I am saying is how can you attribute someone's success or failure on one singular thing. Is that really unreasonable?
Forgive my ignorance, but where does the Purple Line funding come from? I assumed it would be from WMATA funds and maybe grant money.
The feds are geared to put up $900 million. then state has to come up with the rest. The state is trying to go the private-public-partnership route which will defray some of the costs by having private companies put up their share of the start-up and operational costs.
Like I said before, with so much cash on the table, Hogan will be ill-advised to let all that slip away just for the costs to increase with inflation 5 years down the road. It's now or possibly never. many don't feel that diverting that money to more roads is a good choice.
We'll see how all of this shakes out the next few months. Construction is supposed to start by next summer.
The feds are geared to put up $900 million. then state has to come up with the rest. The state is trying to go the private-public-partnership route which will defray some of the costs by having private companies put up their share of the start-up and operational costs.
Like I said before, with so much cash on the table, Hogan will be ill-advised to let all that slip away just for the costs to increase with inflation 5 years down the road. It's now or possibly never. many don't feel that diverting that money to more roads is a good choice.
We'll see how all of this shakes out the next few months. Construction is supposed to start by next summer.
I don't see how in the world he could pass up 900 million in federal money and delay this project and not only drastically increase the cost of the project but waste so much of the money that's already been spent on designing it. If the project is delayed even for a few years, much of the design and environmental studies will have to be redone which will be costly and time consuming and the longer you wait, the more construction costs go up to build it.
This is a very important project that everybody should support, even those that won't use the line. I can't believe the state spent all that money the ICC (a complete waste of money for what it cost) and is even thinking of not doing the purple line. Come on Maryland, get it together.
I don't see how in the world he could pass up 900 million in federal money and delay this project and not only drastically increase the cost of the project but waste so much of the money that's already been spent on designing it. If the project is delayed even for a few years, much of the design and environmental studies will have to be redone which will be costly and time consuming and the longer you wait, the more construction costs go up to build it.
This is a very important project that everybody should support, even those that won't use the line. I can't believe the state spent all that money the ICC (a complete waste of money for what it cost) and is even thinking of not doing the purple line. Come on Maryland, get it together.
He doesn't strike me as a Christie type, I think the project is a go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
